EMAIL us your comments, insights or whatever

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

PART II: Final Understanding

We apologize profusely for the near 30 hour wait for the follow up to yesterday's lesson.

After we had put the finishing touches on our presentation, the NAACP came out with a most wonderful commentary in support of Michael Vick.

Most interesting to us, was the timing. We had previously submitted our guide for understanding the situation in our online classroom here. And, we were most honored that the NAACP seemed to echo our sentiment.

With that in mind, we felt compelled to restructure our closing discussion on this situation. We are never too proud to admit when we haven't thoroughly and righteously completed a presentation. The need to make a few changes and additions to our compelling and informative closing was unmistakable.

To closure.

At this point, most of you have probably come to realize that the entire situation has, admittedly, been handled poorly. From local law enforcement to federal judges. From NFL spectator to NFL commissioner. All have dropped the ball. All have put their needs first.

And, all missed the signs.

The league missed a golden opportunity to step in and correct things.

Owner Arthur Blank allowed his investment in Vick to cloud his judgment. He saw Vick as a stock holding, not a person.

Law enforcement and prosecutors allowed the chance to catch the great white whale (so to speak) cloud the normal protocol for dealing with such cases.

As fans, we allowed our fascination with Vick's ability topropagate our fascination in watching his splaying at the hands of the media.

With the blood of the career of Michael Vick on our hands, we must cleanse ourselves. One and all.

The NFL stood by as Michael Vick asked for help. Knowing he was in a situation that might compromise his future, Vick took the initiative to try to get help. He'd been told that the new commissioner was no nonsense. That the behavior expectations were concrete. With that in mind, and knowing that simply asking for help could jeopardize his safety, Vick tried to institute himself into the NFL's naughty boy club and receive the rehabilitative treatment and counselling it would provide. He brazenly boarded a plane with a contraband bottle. But, what happened next showed that his owner and league were only thinking of the investment in the $130M player.

Instead of the league holding Vick accountable. Instead of pursing a legitimate investigation into the contents of the bottle, the league and law enforcement allowed Vick off the hook. Vick remained virtually silent throughout. Never really denying anything. Months later, in a probable effort to turn attention back to the incident, he mentioned something about the bottle holding jewelry.

His outlandish act and later outlandish attempt to get back into the commissioner's line of sight and get in the program were just ignored.

Vick had little contact with Mr. Blank. One would think such anti-social behavior would illicit some sort of concern. But, rather than risk the chance of losing Vick to any sort of suspension, ownership ignored his silent scream for help.

And finally the first allegations of treating dogs at a somewhat lower than acceptable level surfaced. Goodell met with Vick to ask him about things. Now, the NFL has a substantial security arm. Made up of ex-law enforcement officials. Certainly, the hint of scandal would have had them scrambling to investigate. There is no reason to believe the league would allow themselves to be caught by surprise on this. And later, Goodell even volunteered their services to the federal government to help investigate!

So, it seems most reasonable to believe that when Vick met with Goodell, the situation was not a mystery.

To maintain his safety, Vick denied knowledge and involvement. A scared man in a dangerous way certainly would act irrationally and fear for his safety would force him to bite his lips. And at the same time, hope upon hope that the commissioner would act on the information his security forces had undoubtedly assembled.

But again, rather than put his arm around the terrified young man's shoulders. Rather than tell him, "look, we know the deal. Let us help." Mr. Goodell chose to make record of the denial of involvement to be used later against Vick. Violation of the conduct code, you know.

Rather than hold a news conference and stand tall and tell the world the NFL was going to stand by its largest investment and get him the help he needed to overcome his fear of dogs. To learn not to act on his fear of them and to treat them a bit more kindly. Rather than arming Vick with the confidence to stand up to the individuals who may or may not have strong armed him into conspiring to finance their operation, Mr. Goodell chose to cover his six. And he let Vick walk out the door.

Vick's career bleeding a slow death.

The local investigation turned up items and conjecture which could molded into a case. The federal fat cats, who normally don't get involved in dog fighting operations that are essentially small stakes (the last federal investigation of this sort was in March and involved 100's of individuals), saw the chance to get the headlines and pad their resumes.

And the federal prosecutors aligned themselves to develop an insurance policy. A back up indictment involving gambling, money laundering and tax evasion. Just in case the dog fighting itself didn't stick.

Well, except that Tocchet's involved a huge North American enterprise and the greatest hockey player of all time.

And he got 2 years..................PROBATION!

And we as fans. We lapped up the media bloodletting. Bathing in the ill tides rolling Mr. Vick's way. Taking an odd delight in the absurdity of the charges. The malformation of the investigation. And now, the humbling of the plea.

In an odd way, we deserve to lose Vick. Our role in this is certainly culpable. And the punishment to the fans seems just.

And Vick.

We can't deny that he owns some responsibility here. He made poor choices. And bad decisions.

Instead of relying on the league to enforce their very own codes of conduct, he should have sooner gone to the authorities to let them know that he may have been strong armed into a possibly questionable activity.

Instead of anticipating that law enforcement would use normal measures and treat him as if he were a typical first time offender, he should have braced for storm and armed himself for the worst.

Instead of trusting the media to portray a fair and accurate picture of the situation, he should have known that "news media" and "tabloid" are now synonyms.

So, yes. Michael Vick is accountable.

And yes, Michael Vick will accept that responsibility on Monday.

Then what?

After he trades his iced out watches for dull shackles, then what?

As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football. - Atlanta NAACP Chapter President R.L. WhiteAnd, as a society and as fans, we should aid in the rehabilitation of ourselves.

Or we will continue to be regaled by athletic 'superstars' saying things like this:

"We don't say anything about people shooting deers and shooting other animals, you know what I mean? From what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors and I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down ... I think he fell into a bad situation." - StephonMarburyWe made them superstars. We consume the product.

Toochet gets 2 yrs probation....I read that Donaghy could see as little as 6-12 months......but for a conspiracy charge Mike Vick should see prison time? The only person that needs to be behind bars is Gene Upshaw for the complete impotence he has displayed in his negligence as the head of the NFL players union.

I've gotta say, I can't imagine anyone ever trying to argue that Vick's attempt to bring weed on a plane is evidence that the dogfighting was the NFL's fault. And even though your argument for it makes absolutely no sense and has obvious holes I'm tempted to expose, the mere fact that you tried to argue from that position is a move so outlandishly bold that i'm going to just respect it and step aside on this one.

It's been said longer than I've been alive: With great power comes greater responsibility. Public figures must realize this. You said "he may have been strong armed into questionable activities". He was the one with all the money and resources to start this operation. So was he threatened with the not keepin it real line and was it the threat of the herpes story that forced him into this endevour??

Sirs,Comparing Touchett and Vick is disingenuous because of Vick's extenuating circumstances. Touchett was running an illegitimate version of an activity that is legal (no matter how much $$ was involved), whereas Vick et al. were gambling on a wholly illegal activity which is seen as violent by the voting majority.

You can't remove either from their context, then say that one is unfair without being intellectually dishonest.

"whereas Vick et al. were gambling on a wholly illegal activity which is seen as violent by the voting majority."

Sir, hmmm...

Wonder why everyone is in such an uproar about the NBA ref then, if it was just an illegal version of a legal activity. Imagine he will just get probation, too, huh?

Intellectual dishonesty is taking the righteous thoughts that we provide, and mangling them beyond recognition to fit your own perverse need to mitigate the white hockey players crimes and at the same time make 'violence' an issue when mentioning the Negro.

Mr. Vick is not pleading guilty to violent acts. Only conspiring to finance an endeavor that turned out to be against some fairly new (May 2007) federal laws. Obviously, Mr. Vick's business manager let him down and wasn't up to date on the most current federal statutes.

Additionally, the interjection of organized crime into the 'illegal version of a legal activity' (gambling) certainly produces a violent component. And usually that violence is carried out against HUMANS.

Your contrived effort to let Tocchet off the hook is the real intellectual dishonesty here.

And quite frankly (yes...that is in tribute to the recently deposed SAS), it's just dishonesty. There is nothing intellectual about it.

NOIS, I know you somewhat loathe Jason Whitlock, but on his new column he writes: "I agree with the president of Atlanta's NAACP. The NFL should welcome Michael Vick back to its league once he has finished serving jail time for his involvement in dog fighting."

All Im asking is, how does Vick allow himself to be coerced in this situation? He has all the money and power to tell his relatives or crew that he can't allow himself to be invoved in that kind of endevour. He's not some lacky thats being threatened with banishment from his crew to fend for himself. He was the Dogfather of the operation providing his wealth and own assistance in what seems to be all aspects of Bad Kennel Newz. To say Vick's manager let him down is a disservice to Vick's perceived intelligence. If he could not determine on his own that these actions against dogs were wrong and immoral then Mr. Vick must have the intelligence of a young grade schooler.

"Additionally, the interjection of organized crime into the 'illegal version of a legal activity' (gambling) certainly produces a violent component."

But there wasn't even a whiff of allegations that violent acts occurred as a result of this endeavor. Had there been such allegations surface, extra charges would have been included and Toochet certainly would have done jail time.

The brutality of dog fighting, the scope of the gambling and Vick's obvious involvement in it as laid out in the indictment are why he'll see jail time.

I'm not trying to let a pale-assed hockey guy off the hook; just saying this example doesn't hold water, because it's the weak link in an otherwise great post.

NOIS' trys to explain away the disgusting actions of Vick by saying he only is pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge. Again he is using a technicality to defend criminal behavior. It is common for criminals to accept a plea deal when faced with what they know will be a conviction on more serious charges. Vicks "friends" were set to testify that he actually was involved in the drowning and hanging of dogs. He took the plea to avoid the much longer sentence he would have received. Nois of course will dismiss the truthfulness of these men who were set to testify...how they were criminals and cant be trusted..but in the end they are Con-Vicks friends and when you lay down with the dogs you wake up with the fleas. Nois you keep preaching but the real truth just continues to make you look stupid.

I feel we are at the point racial in this discussion that is in line with some religous factions. We will never be friendly with most of the Middle East, they don't like our culture and learn from the time of birth to hate America, they aren't capable of being independently informed. Just as it seems in the the black community you are raised to distrust law enforcement, possibly through growing up seeing family and friends put in jail for percieved injustices(assault, drugs, gangs). They are "percieved injustices" only due to the fact the enviroment you have grown up in has always been like that, so you don't see it as wrong, but as life. Save your figures on % of blacks jailed to whites or crooked cops as your reason for distrust. Im sure you have some highly educated response to such a simple minded issue, but if laws are not followed then punishment must be enforced.Vick is an entertainer and I hope he can entertain in the future. If he was coerced then he deserves punishment for not being able to stand up for himself. He obviously made some bad decisions and surrounded himself with the wrong people, those are variables Vick had the the power to control and failed to do so. I don't care if he if spends one day in jail, jails are jam packed as it is, but he needs to be honest with everyone no matter how bad it is, he needs to show accountability, whatever his may have been. Anyway, keep up the good work NOIS, I always enjoy seeing the other side you so often provide.

1) Rather than hold a news conference and stand tall and tell the world the NFL was going to stand by its largest investment and get him the help he needed to overcome his fear of dogs. To learn not to act on his fear of them and to treat them a bit more kindly.

How do you know that Vick was afraid of dogs? What Google search missed that?

2) I applaud that you admit Vick has some responsibility to take for this himsel. Please, please, please try not to lose sight of it. There is something to be said for not doing the things that get you into the trouble Vick's in. Self-respect and personal responsibility are not anachronistic ideals, and I'd like to think there's be less "victims" if more people would remember and follow them.

"WASHINGTON --Falcons quarterback Michael Vick "is not a victim" and should be held responsible for his actions involving a dogfighting ring in Virginia, the national president of the NAACP said Thursday."

You guys can't even get your own story straight. The great thing about being human is the ability to have free will. To make our own decisions. No one is to blame but Vick and his enablers. Not me or anyone else reading your blog. Stop the accusations.

""WASHINGTON --Falcons quarterback Michael Vick "is not a victim" and should be held responsible for his actions involving a dogfighting ring in Virginia, the national president of the NAACP said Thursday."

You guys can't even get your own story straight."

Sir, you seem confused.

Our story? This isn't the naacpsportsblog. So, how is what the NAACP president says our story?

Additionally, you left out much of what he said. Simply snipping a portion of the quote to suit your racist needs.

You didnt' mention this:

""People need to understand the backdrop as some in the African-American community make their expressions of support," Hayes said. "That backdrop includes anger and distrust with the criminal justice system that disproportionately pays attention to African-Americans and Hispanics."

or this:

""As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," Atlanta NAACP President R.L. White said. "

what about this?:

""While no dog deserves to be mistreated, the backdrop includes the perception among some African-Americans that the criminal justice system treats them like animals and that nobody seems willing to do anything about the disparity."

this:

""At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice." "

And finally, you didn't mention this:'

""He may in fact be being treated better than some African-Americans and Hispanics who don't have the resources and financial means that he has," Hayes said. "On the other hand, there might be some of a different race or different ethnicity who might be treated a bit differently." "

And, in case you are too dense to understand...the mentioning of 'different race or different ethnicity' is a reference to WHITE PEOPLE.

Still want to agree with the COMPLETE point of view of the NAACP on this, instead of just one out of context sound bite?

"NOIS just took a dump all over your scoreboard, you gonna change the score or what? he just blew 'digger' out the water."

Here's the thing...

NOIS' post victimized Vick while attempting to spread the blame universally, so that Vick received as little as possible. The funny thing about it is that he referenced a NAACP article that basically said the exact opposite: That Vick is not a victim and that he should accept full responsibility for his actions.

NOIS then responds by spouting out other pieces of the article that digger wasn't contesting (the history of unfairness, necessity to let Vick rehabilitate his image, etc.).

And way to dodge getting called out on the ridiculous "fear of dogs" claim NOIS.

But yes, I will change my scoreboard.

digger: 1

NOIS : 0

banana hammock: -1

(And by the way, I'm still waiting on your source from earlier... or am I to assume that you have forfeited that argument)

"You didn't even bother to go read the full article our simple young friend "digger" snipped that little quote from."

I actually read the article before he even posted it, and agree almost wholeheartedly with their stance.

(surprisingly, they forgot to mention the pertinent information on how it was actually Vick's phobia of dogs that caused this situation, or how he honorably tried to fix it beforehand by bringing weed on a plane, and if only the authorities had punished him enough it wouldn't have happened)

I think you need to go back to your baby blue debate team and practice.

(You know, at the school that was such a joke I wouldn't have attended even if THEY offered to pay ME... AND THEY DID!)

Sir, I can't speak for the other commenters who laugh at your hyperbolic rhetoric, but I don't assume that the criminal justice system is entirely fair, especially to racial/ethnic minorities. The prison population in this country is disproportionately composed of young black men. This is not fair. The criminal justice system treats Negroes incredibly poorly.However, Michael Vick broke the law. This isn't my fault. It also isn't your fault. It is the fault of the criminal, who has now admitted his crime. I laugh at your blog because you refuse to accept the judicial proceedings as anything but a race war. You refuse to accept a guilty plea as an admission of guilt.I also hope that Michael Vick returns to the NFL with his personal and professional life in order. Now that we have agreed that he is an offender, "not a victim", we can await his hasty release from a disproportionately black prison. By then, hopefully you will stop apologizing for him.

He is making fools of you. Especially the superduper smart dude from Stanford.

Re-read the posts. He has a weird fucking way of saying it, but he isn't saying that Vick is innocent. And he isn't saying Vick is a victim. He is saying Vick is getting what he deserves, as best as is possible due to the inconsistancies in the justice systsem. He isn't saying WE are to blame, per se. Just that we put athletes on such a pedestal and let them get away with so much, that maybe if we stopped doing it, there would be less bad apples that get caught up in stupid shit.

I think he is writing about VALUES.

You guys look like morons for letting him drag you into this argument.

Standford dude, I think that NOIS passed debate in baby blue with flying colors. He's dragged you into one that he won before you started.

Somehow I fail to take seriously your assertion that Michael Vick brought a water bottle into an airport as a cry for help, particularly a cry to which I was responsible to answer. This is the first such interpreation of his actions that I have heard or read. I am puzzled by your assertion of authority to speak to Mr. Vick's motives. If he had appointed you to such a position, surely he would have made some kind of announcement.

I refuse to take responsiblity for another free individual's criminal actions, because doing so absolves the criminal of a great portion of guilt.

If you proclaim that Mr. Vick is not a victim, for what should I apologize? Of what am I guilty? His status as a non-victim means that others (including myself) have not victimized him.

Now, please continue talking about how I drink urine. This is a wonderful way to respond to my skepticism.

"Not everyone is afforded the means to attend private universities, such as yourself.

Funny, you claim to be a Negro, but take the opportunity to engage in classism as soon as it becomes clear that you are from a higher means than the writers of this blog."

So, because I went to a better school than you that means I'm a rich white guy?

Ah... yes, because only rich white guys go to Stanford, as you have clearly been there (hint: it's the single most diverse campus in the USA). Although, I am glad that you got to share with us just how narrow of a viewpoint you have on the world.

No, fortunately Stanford is Need-Blind, and has an incredible financial aid program, which along with a few other scholarships, provided me the opportunity to go there.

"Particularly, when in our post, we said SPECIFICALLY that Mr. Vick should be held accountable?

The NAACP said he should be held accountable, and so did NOIS.

How exactly were we defeated in debate by a man who disagrees with our post using a quote from the NAACP which says the same thing we said?"

Let me explain, the NAACP did not spread the blame universally, justify his actions through faux-phobias or 'purposeful' previous crimes, and specifically, they did not try and victimize Michael Vick. And your attempt to relate your post to the NAACP's when you did all of these things, only made you look foolish (which he pointed out).

"You wanna stand by your claims that you are even a college graduate?"

No, I'm having fun. Most bloggers do not put forth such audacious claims. I am curious about the arguments that NOIS uses to support his claims. You may be aggravated by our argument, but I get a perverse pleasure out of the glorification of this blog by its usual cadre of commenters. I also enjoy being vilified for my skepticism. Nothing speaks to intellectual honesty and stability like ad hominem attacks.

"Re-read the posts. He has a weird fucking way of saying it, but he isn't saying that Vick is innocent. And he isn't saying Vick is a victim."

He has flat out declared Vick is the victim multiple times.

"He isn't saying WE are to blame, per se. Just that we put athletes on such a pedestal and let them get away with so much, that maybe if we stopped doing it, there would be less bad apples that get caught up in stupid shit."

First off, I understand that and I do agree with nois on this point... I think it was one of the most enlightened aspects of the post.

However, I just wonder when we will stop making excuses for those who have done wrong in an effort to avert blame from them, especially when the excuses start to only embarrass yourself and your race.

"So, because I went to a better school than you that means I'm a rich white guy?"

Sir, again we are forced to doubt the veracity of your educational claims based on your clear disregard for what we wrote.

We mentioned 'classism'. Not race.

To clarify: 'elitism'.

Feeling that you are far superior because of the opportunity afforded you. Feeling that you are so elite that you take pride in disparaging the oldest and one of the very best public universities in the nation.

You look down your nose at others. Cast aspertions against fine institutions.

Certainly Stanford is well known for churning out technically sound graduates. But clearly, your example indicates that they are not turning out good PEOPLE.

We find it hard to believe that someone that was given the chance, and then partook in the wonderful experience that Stanford offers would come out putting down and belittling other institutions that are recognized as being very high quality. Not Stanford quality. But high quality.

ALthough, watching you twist and struggle to make sense. Watching you impotently attack us, without so much as denting the case we make is some what pleasing.

Clearly, Stanford kids ain't all that!

"Let me explain, the NAACP did not spread the blame universally"

Are you sure about that?

See, this isn't the 60's. The NAACP doesn't come out with the militant language like they used to. They speak in codes. We told you one, the reference to people of 'different races and ethnicities', go back and see if you can pick out more.

"However, I just wonder when we will stop making excuses for those who have done wrong in an effort to avert blame from them, especially when the excuses start to only embarrass yourself and your race."

ever occur to you that the "excuses" nois gives might just be satirical? or sarcastic?

Feeling that you are far superior because of the opportunity afforded you. Feeling that you are so elite that you take pride in disparaging the oldest and one of the very best public universities in the nation."

I could fill pages with the condescending attacks you have made in attempts to belittle those, myself included, for even the slightest disagreement.

I have even posed modest questions on this blog, hoping to gain some insight as to why you might have said what you did, only to get a snide comment back on how righteous you are and how I am foolish or just an ignorant racist (which doesn't even make sense).

So forgive me, (after repeatedly observing you make a point, and then go on to try to unnecessarily stomp your opponents self-esteem in the dirt,) for taking up what seemed to be the general mode of argument.

This is what you said just yesterday:

"We're sure you won't. Since you were rejected by them as an undergrad.

Go HEELS!"

You try and call me out on getting rejected to UNC, then cry foul when I rub in the fact that I went to a better school?

No. That was an intellectual retort. And a good one at that. I freely admit that I do not understand the reasoning on which this blog is built. I challenge it in order to gain a better understanding. I understand that many of the commenters on NOIS are proud of the blog and its institutional importance, but I am merely a curious observer. In the future I will say little. I do not mean to provoke such vehement defense of this intellectual exercise. Good day.

"I don't need people snickering behind my back that I got a free pass to Stanford with an Affirmative Action ticket"

I feel sorry that you will not do something based simply on the reactions of others. I suppose that means you won't buy a Mercedes because some imbecile might say 'hes a drug dealer'. Or that you won't marry your love because she is not of your race and someone who has no effect on your life might say something.

'master',NOIS,sir,sorry if I represented your homophobia in a coarse fashion.princess,sir?miss?,I didn't mean to provoke a hissy fit.Simply observing that everyone wants to snicker at someone they percieve to be beneath them,even a light-skinned non-affirmative action homosexual pitching not catching proud self-made black man.If you don't think you were assumed to be at UNC on a free pass or pegged as a freak here for being gay,add delusional.

Just so you know, my acceptance and subsequent scholarships/financial aid had nothing to do with affirmative action. Furthermore, I actually reject the idea of affirmative action on the whole, because I think, while good-intentioned, it is flawed for being inherently racist.

"Just so you know, my acceptance and subsequent scholarships/financial aid had nothing to do with affirmative action. Furthermore, I actually reject the idea of affirmative action on the whole, because I think, while good-intentioned, it is flawed for being inherently racist. "

sure it wasn't...hahaha.

that is sad. a man that BENEFITS from AA is against it.

You are one uppity jig, man.

You go to Stanford, so you look down on other blacks that went to public colleges. AND you got there because of the changes achieved through AA, but you don't want any of your other brethren to benefit from it.

now, i am totally against AA. but damn, you are one ungrateful, ungiving back, bougie, hateful of other blacks individual.

i am no fan of blacks. but wow! you make racist whites look black friendly.

Allow me to rephrase myself: I am completely for AA when it is used correctly to provide equal opportunity for all. But against it in cases such as Michigan's point system, where a rich, privileged private high school suburban black kid would have a better chance than a poor white kid only because of the color of his skin.

Although I don't even know why I bother explaining myself to a person like Dave the Wave

"Although I don't even know why I bother explaining myself to a person like Dave the Wave "

mind if i answer that?

because you are a pompous west coast ivy educated wind bag that takes every opportunity to listen (or read) his brilliant thoughts on the world, some how believing that you have some sort of unique take on things or unique contribution.

in other words, you can't help yourself when it comes to some one like dave the wave.

"because you are a pompous west coast ivy educated wind bag that takes every opportunity to listen (or read) his brilliant thoughts on the world, some how believing that you have some sort of unique take on things or unique contribution."

So civilly explaining that I am not a racist is now pompous?

Well then what adjective would you use to describe unnecessarily attacking someone in an argument you aren't even part of?